DOCSLIB.ORG

ASTHO US-Affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPI) Profile Report There Are a Number of Contextual Considerations to Keep in Mind While Reading This Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ASTHO US-Affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPI) Profile Report There Are a Number of Contextual Considerations to Keep in Mind While Reading This Report ASTHO US-Affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPI) Profile Report Introduction This report marks the release of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) Profile Survey report on the US-affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPI). The ASTHO Profile Survey is the only comprehensive source of information about state, territorial, and freely-associated state public health agency activities, structure, and resources. The Profile survey aims to define the scope of public health services, identify variations in practice among agencies, and contribute to the development of best practices in governmental public health. This is the third survey in a series; prior surveys were completed in 2007 and 2010. The US-affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPI) consists of three United States territories: American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam; and three independent countries in free association with the United States: the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. Methods In October 2012, ASTHO launched the third iteration of the Profile Survey, sending a link to the web- based survey to senior deputies from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Atlantic US territories and the USAPI. The 121-question instrument covered the following topic areas: Agency structure, governance, and priorities; Workforce; Agency activities; Planning and quality improvement; Health information management; and Finance. Along with general instructions, senior deputies received recommendations on the most appropriate staff to fill out each section of the survey. The survey could be filled out by multiple personnel in multiple sittings. While senior deputies were asked to complete the survey by December 1, 2012, the administration system was held open until May 2013 to allow as many states, territories, and freely associated states to complete the survey as possible. ASTHO received assistance in collecting USAPI data from the Pacific Island Health Officer Association (PIHOA), including assistance in data entry of handwritten responses to the survey. Five of the six USAPI responded to the survey, for a response rate of 83 percent. USAPI Report The results from the states and the District of Columbia were released in a report in June 2014. Differences in public health and general infrastructure, in jurisdictional governance, and different social and environmental impacts on health warranted a separate report focusing specifically on the USAPI. While these individual jurisdictions also differ from one another culturally, politically, and socially, there are more similarities among the five responding jurisdictions than between the five jurisdictions and the US states. Considerations for the Report ASTHO US-Affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPI) Profile Report There are a number of contextual considerations to keep in mind while reading this report. First, the data included in this report were collected between October 2012 and May 2013; therefore, the status of some items may have changed since then. Secondly, like health agencies in the United States, health agencies in the USAPI rely heavily on categorical federal funding to support their activities and functions. However, health agencies in the USAPI have fewer, more limited sources of discretionary funding than health agencies on the US mainland. In some cases, the health agency and its activities in the USAPI may be nearly exclusively funded through federal funds given limited tax bases. Thus, many of the functions and services provided by health agencies in the USAPI may be determined by the agency’s grants and sources of funding. The same survey instrument was used to collect data from both the US mainland and the USAPI in order to have uniform and comparable data; since the closure of the survey ASTHO has developed better institutional knowledge about the organization and delivery of public health services in the USAPI and ways in which it may differ considerably from the US mainland. Thus, some of the information was collected with a US mainland lens which may not be as relevant to the USAPI. For example, differences in the USAPI health agencies’ infrastructure and capacity for some functions and services, such as data collection, surveillance, and epidemiology as compared to health agencies on the US mainland may mean that the types of activities performed under those broad categories in the USAPI differ from the mainland US. Also, there may be differences in interpretation for some items in this survey. For example, in many of the USAPI, the health department is closely connected with the local hospital. As such, the concept of quality improvement may sometimes be understood in the context of quality assurance and hospital practices, as opposed to the shared understanding in health agencies in the US of quality improvement in the context of health agency performance. Also, different cultural norms may make certain response options for questions less relevant to the USAPI jurisdictions. For example, several questions include information about agency activities related to nursing homes, but in many of the USAPI jurisdictions the elderly more often live in family homes. It is important to take these items into consideration when reading this report and when making comparisons to state health agencies. Agency Activities in the US-Affiliated Pacific Islands Like public health agencies in the US states, health agencies in the USAPI perform a wide range of functions and activities to promote and protect the health of citizens in their jurisdictions. Below is the analysis of select functions and activities directly performed by the five responding health agencies. Immunization Services The responding health agencies reported directly providing a range of immunization services. Table 1 shows the immunization services provided by each jurisdiction. Table 1. Immunization Services Directly Provided by Health Agency, 2012 Guam American Republic of Federated Republic of Samoa Palau States of the Marshall Micronesia Islands Vaccine order X X X X X management: adult ASTHO US-Affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPI) Profile Report Vaccine order X X X X X management: childhood Vaccine order X X X management: international travel Vaccine X X X X X administration: adult Vaccine X X X X X administration: childhood Vaccine X X X administration: international travel Key findings related to immunization services include: One-hundred percent of agencies reported directly performing both vaccine order management and administration for both childhood and adult immunizations. Sixty percent of agencies reported directly performing both vaccine order management and administration for international travel immunizations. Screening for Diseases and Conditions Table 2 displays the responding health agencies and the screenings for diseases and conditions they reported directly performing. Table 2. Screenings for Diseases and Conditions, 2012 Guam American Republic of Federated Republic of Samoa Palau States of the Marshall Micronesia Islands Asthma X X X Blood lead X X X BMI X X X X X Breast/cervical X X X X X cancer Colon/rectum X X X X cancer Other cancer X X X X screenings Cardiovascular X X X X disease Diabetes X X X X X ASTHO US-Affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPI) Profile Report Hypertension X X X X X HIV/AIDS X X X X X Other STDs X X X X X Newborn X X X X X screening Prediabetes X X X X X Tuberculosis X X X X X Other X X X X X Key findings from this table include: The majority of agencies reported directly performing the majority of screening activities included on the survey. Other screenings included Hansen’s disease and oral health screenings, among others. Laboratory Services Health agencies often provide a range of laboratory services. Table 3 displays the laboratory services that the responding health agencies reported directly performing. It is important to note that given the infrastructure in some of the responding jurisdictions, laboratory samples may be shipped off of the island for analysis. Table 3. Laboratory Services, 2012 Guam American Republic of Federated Republic of Samoa Palau States of the Marshall Micronesia Islands Bioterrorism agent testing Blood lead X X screening Cholesterol X X X screening Foodborne X X X illness testing Influenza X X X typing Newborn X X X X screening Biomonitoring X X X Other X X Key findings from Table 3 include: The laboratory activity that the largest percentage of health agencies reported directly providing was newborn screening (80 percent). Sixty percent of responding health agencies reported directly performing lab services for cholesterol screenings, foodborne illness testing, influenza typing, and biomonitoring. ASTHO US-Affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPI) Profile Report None of the responding agencies reported directly performing bioterrorism agent testing. Registry Maintenance Health agencies maintain registries as part of federal mandates and to promote the health and wellbeing of their residents. Table 4 shows the registry maintenance activities that the responding agencies reported directly performing. Table 4. Registry Maintenance, 2012 Guam American Republic of Federated Republic of Samoa Palau States of the Marshall Micronesia Islands Birth defects X X X registry Cancer registry X X X X Immunization X X X X X registry Diabetes X X X X X registry Other X X Points of note from this table include: The majority of respondents reported directly maintaining the majority of registries
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit Era
    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 151-168 The sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit era Maria Mut Bosque School of Law, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain MINECO DER 2017-86138, Ministry of Economic Affairs & Digital Transformation, Spain Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, UK [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract: This paper focuses on an analysis of the sovereignty of two territorial entities that have unique relations with the United Kingdom: the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Each of these entities includes very different territories, with different legal statuses and varying forms of self-administration and constitutional linkages with the UK. However, they also share similarities and challenges that enable an analysis of these territories as a complete set. The incomplete sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and BOTs has entailed that all these territories (except Gibraltar) have not been allowed to participate in the 2016 Brexit referendum or in the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Brexit is not an exceptional situation. In the future there will be more and more relevant international issues for these territories which will remain outside of their direct control, but will have a direct impact on them. Thus, if no adjustments are made to their statuses, these territories will have to keep trusting that the UK will be able to represent their interests at the same level as its own interests. Keywords: Brexit, British Overseas Territories (BOTs), constitutional status, Crown Dependencies, sovereignty https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.114 • Received June 2019, accepted March 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Nigeria's Constitution of 1999
    PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:42 constituteproject.org Nigeria's Constitution of 1999 This complete constitution has been generated from excerpts of texts from the repository of the Comparative Constitutions Project, and distributed on constituteproject.org. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:42 Table of contents Preamble . 5 Chapter I: General Provisions . 5 Part I: Federal Republic of Nigeria . 5 Part II: Powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria . 6 Chapter II: Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy . 13 Chapter III: Citizenship . 17 Chapter IV: Fundamental Rights . 20 Chapter V: The Legislature . 28 Part I: National Assembly . 28 A. Composition and Staff of National Assembly . 28 B. Procedure for Summoning and Dissolution of National Assembly . 29 C. Qualifications for Membership of National Assembly and Right of Attendance . 32 D. Elections to National Assembly . 35 E. Powers and Control over Public Funds . 36 Part II: House of Assembly of a State . 40 A. Composition and Staff of House of Assembly . 40 B. Procedure for Summoning and Dissolution of House of Assembly . 41 C. Qualification for Membership of House of Assembly and Right of Attendance . 43 D. Elections to a House of Assembly . 45 E. Powers and Control over Public Funds . 47 Chapter VI: The Executive . 50 Part I: Federal Executive . 50 A. The President of the Federation . 50 B. Establishment of Certain Federal Executive Bodies . 58 C. Public Revenue . 61 D. The Public Service of the Federation . 63 Part II: State Executive . 65 A. Governor of a State . 65 B. Establishment of Certain State Executive Bodies .
    [Show full text]
  • A Stability Pact for the Caucasus in Theory and Practice
    CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES WORKING DOCUMENT NO. 152 SEPTEMBER 2000 A STABILITY PACT FOR THE CAUCASUS IN THEORY AND PRACTICE - A SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE MICHAEL EMERSON NATHALIE TOCCI AND ELENA PROKHOROVA CEPS Working Documents are published to give an early indication of the work in progress within CEPS research programmes and to stimulate reactions from other experts in the field. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the authors in a personal capacity and not to any institution with which they are associated. ISBN 92-9079-309-0 © Copyright 2000, Michael Emerson, Nathalie Tocci and Elena Prokhorova A Stability Pact for the Caucasus in Theory and Practice - A Supplementary Note CEPS Working Document No. 152, November 2000 Michael Emerson, Nathalie Tocci & Elena Prokhorova* Abstract In response to appeals of the leaders of the South Caucasus for a Stability Pact for the region, CEPS published in May 2000 a consultative document with a comprehensive proposal (available on www.ceps.be). Subsequently the authors have held extensive consultations with the leaders in all three states of the South Caucasus, and in four of the key autonomies (Nagorno Karabakh, Abkhazia, Adjaria, Ossetia). The present paper draws together the information and ideas collected during these consultations, although the conclusions are only attributable to the authors. The main argument of the original document is maintained, and strengthened with more precise views on how the conflicts might be solved within the framework of a Stability Pact. However the proposed Stability Pact process could be more than just an approach to conflict resolution. It has systemic or even constitutional aspects, with elements to overcome the transitional problems of the weak state and ease the confrontations of traditional notions such as independence versus territorial integrity, or the choice between federation and confederation, which are part of the present impasse.
    [Show full text]
  • States and Sovereignty in the Middle East: Myths and Realities
    States and sovereignty in the Middle East: myths and realities LOUISE FAWCETT* To many observers the Middle East state system since the Arab uprisings stands at a critical juncture, displaying contradictory patterns of fragility and durability. The uprisings, which started late in 2010, were undoubtedly revolutionary in their initial impact, but beyond Tunisia, it is the counter-revolutionary movement that has proved the more durable.1 The region has witnessed multiple regime changes alongside high levels of popular mobilization, violence and transnational activism. The results have been highly destabilizing, resulting in challenges, not only to regimes, but also to the very sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. This situation, in turn, has contributed to a shifting regional balance of power and repeated episodes of external intervention. Some commentators have argued that the whole regional system, always fragile and contested, is finally undergoing radical transformation; others point to its resilience.2 This article evaluates the latest wave of instability and its consequences for Middle Eastern states, their sovereignty and regional order, introducing themes and discussions taken up in other articles in this special issue. It argues—connecting directly to the article by I. William Zartman3—that despite recent upheavals (and multiple predictions to the contrary), it is likely that the Middle East system of states and borders will remain largely intact—at least in the medium term. This does not mean that states are necessarily ‘strong’ in a Weberian sense, or that sovereignty at different levels is uncontested, but that continuity—state (even regime) survival and border preser- vation—is likely to prevail over major change.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas
    Chapter 2 Introduction CONTENTS Page Insular Relationships to the Federal Government . 39 Commonwealths. 39 Unincorporated Territories . 40 Freely Associated States . 40 The Importance of U.S.-Affiliated Islands to US. National Security . 41 Economic Development in U.S.-Affiliated Islands: The Problem . 41 Ecological Factors . 42 Geographical Factors. 43 Socioeconomic Factors . 43 Goals of Renewable Resource Management and Development . 45 Chapter 2 References . 46 Tables Table No. Page 2-1. United States-Insular Area Relationships . 39 2-2. General Characteristics of Islands . 42 Figure Figure No. Page 2-1. Comparison of Typical Population Pyramids . 44 — Chapter Introduction INSULAR RELATIONSHIPS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The U.S.-affiliated tropical islands have a is represented by a nonvoting Resident Com- wide range of relationships to the U.S. Govern- missioner. The Resident Commissioner and ment (table 2-1), Two are commonwealths— Delegates sit in the House of Representatives, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands have a voice in legislation pertaining to their (NMI)–having local autonomy but voluntarily islands, and can vote in Committee. While the associated with the United States. The U.S. Vir- territories are eligible for many Federal pro- gin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam are grams on the same basis as a State, the islanders unincorporated territories (to which only cer- do not contribute to the national treasury tain provisions of the U.S. Constitution have through Federal income taxes, been expressly extended) under the administra- Determination of U.S. policy for the territo- tion of elected Governors. Finally, the Repub- ries is within the jurisdiction of Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining and Describing Regions
    OECD Regions at a Glance 2011 © OECD 2011 Defining and Describing Regions Territorial grids In any analytical study conducted at sub-national levels, the choice of the territorial unit is of prime importance. To address this issue, the OECD has classified two levels of geographic units within each member country (Table A.1 in Annex A). The higher level (Territorial level 2 [TL2]) consists of 362 larger regions while the lower level (Territorial level 3 [TL3]) is composed of 1 794 smaller regions. All the territorial units are defined within national borders and in most of the cases correspond to administrative regions. Regions at the lower level (TL3) are contained within the higher level (TL2).* This classification – which, for European countries, is largely consistent with the Eurostat classification – facilitates greater comparability of geographic units at the same territorial level. Indeed these two levels, which are officially established and relatively stable in all member countries, are used as a framework for implementing regional policies in most countries. Due to limited data availability, labour-market indicators in Canada are presented for groups of TL3 regions. Since these groups are not part of the OECD official territorial grids, for the sake of simplicity they are labelled as non-official grids (NOGs) in this publication and compared with TL3 for the other countries (Table A.1 in Annex A). The OECD has recently started to extend the regional classification to new member countries and emerging economies. More precisely TL2 regions have been identified and statistics collected in Chile, Estonia, Israel and Slovenia (new OECD members); Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, China and South Africa (the BRICS countries).
    [Show full text]
  • List of Commonwealth Countries, British Overseas Territories, British Crown Dependencies and EU Member States
    List of Commonwealth countries, British Overseas Territories, British Crown Dependencies and EU member states Commonwealth countries1 Antigua and Barbuda Kenya St Vincent and the Grenadines Australia Kiribati Samoa The Bahamas Lesotho Seychelles Bangladesh Malawi Sierra Leone Barbados Malaysia Singapore Belize Malta* Solomon Islands Botswana Mauritius South Africa Brunei Mozambique Sri Lanka Cameroon Namibia Swaziland Canada Nauru Tonga Dominica New Zealand Trinidad and Tobago Fiji Nigeria Tuvalu Ghana Pakistan Uganda Grenada Papua New Guinea United Kingdom* Guyana Republic of Cyprus* United Republic of Tanzania India Rwanda Vanuatu Jamaica St Christopher and Nevis Zambia St Lucia Zimbabwe *Although also EU member states, citizens of the UK, Cyprus and Malta are eligible to be registered to vote in respect of all elections held in the UK. 1 Citizens of Commonwealth countries that have been suspended from the Commonwealth retain their voting rights. Their voting rights would only be affected if their country was also deleted from the list of Commonwealth countries in the British Nationality Act 1981 through an Act of the UK Parliament. British Overseas Territories Anguilla Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands Bermuda St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha British Antarctic Territory South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands British Indian Ocean Territory Sovereign Base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus Cayman Islands Falkland Islands Turks and Caicos Islands Gibraltar Virgin Islands Montserrat British Crown Dependencies
    [Show full text]
  • Country Coding Units
    INSTITUTE Country Coding Units v11.1 - March 2021 Copyright © University of Gothenburg, V-Dem Institute All rights reserved Suggested citation: Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Staffan I. Lindberg, Jan Teorell, and Lisa Gastaldi. 2021. ”V-Dem Country Coding Units v11.1” Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. Funders: We are very grateful for our funders’ support over the years, which has made this ven- ture possible. To learn more about our funders, please visit: https://www.v-dem.net/en/about/ funders/ For questions: [email protected] 1 Contents Suggested citation: . .1 1 Notes 7 1.1 ”Country” . .7 2 Africa 9 2.1 Central Africa . .9 2.1.1 Cameroon (108) . .9 2.1.2 Central African Republic (71) . .9 2.1.3 Chad (109) . .9 2.1.4 Democratic Republic of the Congo (111) . .9 2.1.5 Equatorial Guinea (160) . .9 2.1.6 Gabon (116) . .9 2.1.7 Republic of the Congo (112) . 10 2.1.8 Sao Tome and Principe (196) . 10 2.2 East/Horn of Africa . 10 2.2.1 Burundi (69) . 10 2.2.2 Comoros (153) . 10 2.2.3 Djibouti (113) . 10 2.2.4 Eritrea (115) . 10 2.2.5 Ethiopia (38) . 10 2.2.6 Kenya (40) . 11 2.2.7 Malawi (87) . 11 2.2.8 Mauritius (180) . 11 2.2.9 Rwanda (129) . 11 2.2.10 Seychelles (199) . 11 2.2.11 Somalia (130) . 11 2.2.12 Somaliland (139) . 11 2.2.13 South Sudan (32) . 11 2.2.14 Sudan (33) .
    [Show full text]
  • Political Status of Puerto Rico: Brief Background and Recent Developments for Congress
    Political Status of Puerto Rico: Brief Background and Recent Developments for Congress R. Sam Garrett Specialist in American National Government June 12, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44721 Political Status of Puerto Rico: Brief Background and Recent Developments for Congress Summary Puerto Rico lies approximately 1,000 miles southeast of Miami and 1,500 miles from Washington, DC. Despite being far outside the continental United States, the island has played a significant role in American politics and policy since the United States acquired Puerto Rico from Spain in 1898. Puerto Rico’s political status—referring to the relationship between the federal government and a territorial one—is an undercurrent in virtually every policy matter on the island. In a June 11, 2017, plebiscite (popular vote), 97.2% of voters chose statehood when presented with three options on the ballot. Turnout for the plebiscite was 23.0% of eligible voters. Some parties and other groups opposing the plebiscite had urged their bases to boycott the vote. (These data are based on 99.5% of precincts reporting results.) After initially including only statehood and free association/independence options, an amended territorial law ultimately permitted three options on the plebiscite ballot: statehood, free association/independence, or current territorial status. Before the latest plebiscite, Puerto Ricans most recently reconsidered their status through a 2012 plebiscite. On that occasion, voters were asked two questions: whether to maintain the status quo, and if a change were selected, whether to pursue statehood, independence, or status as a “sovereign free associated state.” Majorities chose a change in the status quo in answering the first question, and statehood in answering the second.
    [Show full text]
  • El Niño and Its Impacts on Federated States of Micronesia – Pohnpei And
    El Niño and its Impacts on Federated States of Micronesia – Pohnpei and Kosrae What is El Niño? The El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a recurring climate pattern involving changes in the temperature of waters in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean and the patterns of sea level pressure, lower- and upper-level winds, and tropical rainfall across the Pacific basin. On periods ranging from about two to seven years, the surface waters across a large swath of the tropical Pacific Ocean warm or cool by anywhere from 1°C to 3°C, compared to normal. This irregular oscillation between warm and cool patterns, referred to as the ENSO cycle, directly affects rainfall distribution in the tropics and can have a strong influence on weather across the Pacific basin. El Niño and La Niña are the extreme phases of the ENSO cycle; between these two phases is a third phase called ENSO-neutral. ENSO-neutral: Under normal conditions strong El Niño in FSM trade winds blow from the east along the equator, pushing warm water into the western Pacific Ocean. Rainfall Less more at first, but then much less; longer and drier dry-season Trade Winds Less weaker, with occasional westerly winds Tropical Cyclones More increased risk, as more storms form closer to the islands El Niño conditions occur when abnormally warm Sea Level Less waters build in tropical region of the central and eastern Pacific Ocean and are usually associated with lower at first, then gradually recovering a weakening of the easterly trade winds, sometimes even reversing to westerlies.
    [Show full text]
  • A Failed Relationship: Micronesia and the United States of America Eddie Iosinto Yeichy*
    A Failed Relationship: Micronesia and the United States of America Eddie Iosinto Yeichy* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 172 II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MIRCORONESIA AND THE UNITED STATES .............................................................................................. 175 A. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands ........................................ 175 B. Compact of Free Association.................................................... 177 III. UNITED STATES FAILURE TO FULFILL ITS LEGAL DUTIES .................. 178 A. Historical Failures ................................................................... 178 B. Modern Failures ....................................................................... 184 C. Proposed Truths for United States Failure ............................... 186 IV. PROPOSED SOLUTION: SOCIAL HEALING THROUGH JUSTICE FRAMEWORK .................................................................................... 186 A. Earlier Efforts of Reparation: Courts Tort Law Monetary Model ........................................................................................ 187 B. Professor Yamamoto’s Social Healing Through Justice Framework ............................................................................... 188 C. Application: Social Healing Through Justice Framework ....... 191 D. Clarifying COFA Legal Status .................................................. 193 V. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutionality of Decolonization by Associated Statehood: Puerto Rico's Legal Status Reconsidered, 50 Boston College Law Review (2009)
    Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2009 The onsC titutionality of Decolonization by Associated Statehood: Puerto Rico's Legal Status Reconsidered Robert Sloane Boston Univeristy School of Law Gary Lawson Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert Sloane & Gary Lawson, The Constitutionality of Decolonization by Associated Statehood: Puerto Rico's Legal Status Reconsidered, 50 Boston College Law Review (2009). Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/581 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DECOLONIZATION BY ASSOCIATED STATEHOOD: PUERTO RICO’S LEGAL STATUS RECONSIDERED Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 09-19 (March 5, 2009; Rev. September 14, 2009) Gary Lawson Robert D. Sloane This paper can be downloaded without charge at: http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/scholarship/workingpapers/2009.html THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DECOLONIZATION BY ASSOCIATED STATEHOOD: PUERTO RICO’S LEGAL STATUS RECONSIDERED Gary Lawson* Robert D. Sloane** Abstract: International and constitutional law arguably collide in the le- gal arrangement between the United States and Puerto Rico. As a matter of international law, it is unclear that this arrangement conforms to cus- tomary international and treaty obligations. As a matter of national law, it is unclear that the Constitution permits an arrangement between Puerto Rico and the United States—short of separation (independence as a State) or integration (admission to the Union as a state)—that could con- form to these international obligations.
    [Show full text]